Interference call- LLWS- Junior Girls Championship Game

Hi Dana,

Yes, I was watching that game. Very interesting series of events and application of multiple rules. For anyone interested, I believe that you can still see this situation by logging on to ESPN3, Jr Softball Florida vs Puerto Rico (mid August), 7th inning. It's worth taking a look.

Top of 7, one out, R3 and R2, score 3-2, Florida (visitors) trailing Puerto Rico. Slow chopper hit to SS, who throws to first for a close play. Immediately, 1B throws home to attempt to throw out B3 at the plate. B3 slides and is safe. BR stops briefly after running past first base, then dashes to 2B while the ball was at the plate. Catcher throws to 2B, U2 calles her out; meanwhile, R2 advances safely home.

The umpires convened after the play. They acknowledged that the BR had been called out at first. They ruled that there had been interference by the BR by running to 2B and drawing a throw after she had already been called out at 1B. They then placed R2 back to 3rd (why? Isn't there always an out when there is interference, even if it has to be applied to a different runner?).

For me, the key question is, did BR commit interference when she advanced to 2B? Did she "hinder or impede any following play being made on a runner?"

- If yes, since BR was already called out at 1B, I would call R2 out for the third out on the interference of BR, since R2 was the only remaining runner at the time of the interference (immediate dead ball). R3 had scored prior to the interference.

-If no, I say R2 (in addition to R3) scores; don't send R2 back to 3B.

Did the BR (who was already out) "hinder or impede" any following play being made on a runner? According to American Heritage Dictionary:
hinder 1hamper 1impede obstruct block dam 1bar 1

These verbs mean to slow or prevent progress or movement.
To hinder is to hold back and often implies stopping or prevention.
To impede is to slow by making action or movement difficult.

It seems, according to these definitions, that hinder or impede mean to get in the way or slow something down, which in my opinion, did not happen.

It seems "unfair" any way you slice it, but "in my personal judgment," there was no interference. The runner did not get in the way, and did not force the catcher to throw to second - that throw was voluntary by the catcher, and the catcher made the throw to 2B knowing that there was a runner on 3B. It is reasonable to assume that the BR thought she was safe (the play was close, the crowd was loud) and that she had an opportunity to run to 2nd during the first throw home. It is also reasonable to assume that the catcher did not see the out called at first, because she needed to focus immediately on the throw home to try to get B3. It would also be reasonable for the catcher to assume, when she saw BR running to 2B, that BR had been safe at 1B. I did not see any indication that the BR was intentionally trying to deceive and draw a throw after she was already out. Her behavior indicated that she thought she was safe at 1B. I saw no indication of the BR trying to create a travesty of the game. The catcher and the rest of the defense has an obligation to know the number of outs, the situation, etc, and if they don't, "too bad, so sad:(.

End result, I think that the 2nd run should have scored, rather than B2 being sent back to 3B. I think the umpires sent R2 back to 3B to be "fair" - each team had a benefit and a detriment from that result, creating a "wash." (Of course, there is nothing about "what is fair" or a "wash" in the rule book...)

What did you think?

Kate Hart

.